This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Apparently my earlier questions about multiple marriage restrictions were answered as Roberts said the majority opinion opens the door for legal multiple marriages

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

I sometimes think that gay marriage advocates are acting in bad faith.

from the majority opinion

it is the enduring importance of marriage that
underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is
their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage,
the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their
respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.
And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage
is their only real path to this profound commitment.

Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases
illustrates the urgency of the petitioners’ cause from their
perspective.

Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the
Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They
fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting,
committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was
diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known
cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to
commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur
died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from
Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It
was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were
wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the
tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died.
Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the
surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute,
they must remain strangers even in death, a stateimposed
separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest
of time.” App. in No. 14–556 etc., p. 38. He brought suit
to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death
certificate.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the
case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony
to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They
both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse
in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered
and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year,
they welcomed another son into their family. The new
baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological
mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a
baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan,
however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or
single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one
woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to
arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children
as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall
either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal
rights over the children she had not been permitted to
adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty
their unmarried status creates in their lives.

Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his
partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee
case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy
to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married
in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment,
which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two
settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the
Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from
them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and
disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who
served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution
protects, must endure a substantial burden.

The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners
as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories
reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather
to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined
by its bond.

We cannot deny fundamental rights to some people merely because someone else has an opinion you don't like

But the primary issue that someone challenging a law preventing polygamy is that they have to overcome the State's legitimate interest of preventing fraud and folks being able to claim the tax benefits without any of the associated societal benefits.

That's got to be the first legitimate argument against polygamy that I've ever seen. However, its still not enough. They have the same concern (fraud) when it comes to permits and licenses for people owning a gun. Yet since its a Right then they still have to find a way to deal with it. Same goes for people claiming that their home/land should be considered church property and as such exempt from taxation.

I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

In the end? Lol. Good grief, here, I'll make you a deal. If you're right, I'll buy you a beer in hell. What? You didn't think you'd end up in heaven because you hated on homosexuals from the anonymity of a computer... did you? I'm being facetious of course. There is no heaven or hell. You live, you die, then you get eaten by worms.

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

It can be, but in this case, almost certainly won't be because of the fact that support for same sex marriage is only increasing not decreasing, and the only way for this to go back to Court is if the states refuse to obey the SCOTUS ruling and the federal government refuses to enforce it.

You could be right - no way to be certain, either way. For me, however, courts are now a crap shoot - judges have become purveyors of opinion rather than upholders of the law. They are true politicians, more concerned with the prevailing winds rather then their oath of office. I hope you're right about support for same sex couples growing - at one time many Americans were pretty confident about the abortion decision being unassailable, and you see where that is now. The courts should never move faster than society, in my view. But it is what it is and many, if not all, should be hopeful of calm going forward.

A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

I'm happy that this is over and settled. Time to move on. Incidentally I was also pleased with Jeb Bush's handling of the matter, no theatrical hysterics just a reasoned understanding that the issue is over and it is time to move forward.